Jim-Kouri

Jim Kouri, CPP, is founder and CEO of Kouri Associates, a homeland security, public safety and political consulting firm. He’s formerly Fifth Vice-President, now a Board Member of the National Association of Chiefs of Police, a columnist, and a contributor to the nationally syndicated talk-radio program, the Chuck Wilder Show.. He’s former chief of police at a New York City housing project in Washington Heights nicknamed “Crack City” by reporters covering the drug war in the 1980s. In addition, he served as director of public safety at St. Peter’s University and director of security for several major organizations. He’s also served on the National Drug Task Force and trained police and security officers throughout the country.

EXCERPT FROM THIS ARTICLE:

A former Department of Justice prosecuting attorney who now works as an independent government watchdog has said that he believes then-Secretary of State Clinton — was responsible for leaking classified intelligence regarding the military plans of Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and the Jewish State’s intelligence and military officials with the goal of destroying Iran’s facilities used to create a nuclear bomb.

According to documents obtained by the non-profit group Freedom Watch, which is headed by Larry Klayman, who once served in the U.S. Justice Department, Secretary Clinton and her closest staff members were the likely sources of the leaks to New York Times reporter David Sanger. Klayman also said Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) documents revealed that the Clinton leaks to the media were perpetrated with the knowledge of the Obama White House’s national security team, including Susan “Benghazi” Rice and Iranian-born Valerie Jarrett.

In a special report for the print and broadcast news industry watchdog group Accuracy in Media, Conservative Base editor Jim Kouri reported that Hillary Clinton while the Secretary of State leaked classified information to the Iranian government. While many law enforcement and intelligence officers expected at the very least a probe of her behavior, Hillary Clinton never faced even the hint of an investigation and the denizens of America’s newsrooms ignored the allegations.

Meanwhile today, President Donald Trump is being investigated for an evidence-lacking accusation that he colluded with Russian boogeyman Vladimir Putin to derail Clinton’s presidential aspirations.

On Tuesday, Obama’s National Security Advisor Susan Rice admitted that she used the intelligence community to spy on members of the Trump team, but this type of behavior isn’t anything new.

In fact, it appears the Obama White House had been spying on its political opponents and leaking classified information about them long before Donald Trump won the presidential election last November, Lee Smith of Tablet Magazine writes.

Remember the Iran Deal negotiations? In December 2015,The Wall Street Journal revealed that the Obama administration used the NSA to cast a wide net of surveillance around not just Israeli officials and diplomats, but American lawmakers who were friendly towards Israel as well as Jewish-American groups.

White House officials believed the intercepted information could be valuable to counter Mr. Netanyahu’s campaign. They also recognized that asking for it was politically risky. So, wary of a paper trail stemming from a request, the White House let the NSA decide what to share and what to withhold, officials said. ‘We didn’t say, ‘Do it,’ a senior U.S. official said. ‘We didn’t say, ‘Don’t do it.’

Stepped-up NSA eavesdropping revealed to the White House how Mr. Netanyahu and his advisers had leaked details of the U.S.-Iran negotiations—learned through Israeli spying operations—to undermine the talks; coordinated talking points with Jewish-American groups against the deal; and asked undecided lawmakers what it would take to win their votes, according to current and former officials familiar with the intercepts.

In other words, the Obama White House used Israel as an excuse to collect classified information on its political opponents via the NSA and then leak bits of this information to the news media in an effort to intimidate them. Smith writes.

Obama’s Parting Betrayal of Israel

Trump must ensure there are consequences for supporting U.N. Security Council Resolution 2334.

by John Bolton

Mr. Bolton is a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute and author of “Surrender Is Not an Option: Defending America at the United Nations and Abroad” (Simon & Schuster, 2007).

December 27, 2016

EXCERPT FROM THIS ARTICLE:

First, there must be consequences for the adoption of Resolution 2334. The Trump administration should move to repeal the resolution, giving the 14 countries that supported it a chance to correct their error. Nations that affirm their votes should have their relations with Washington adjusted accordingly. In some cases this might involve vigorous diplomatic protests. But the main perpetrators in particular should face more tangible consequences.

As for the United Nations itself, if this mistake is not fixed the U.S. should withhold at least its assessed contributions to the U.N.—which amount to about $3 billion annually or 22%-25% of its total regular and peacekeeping budgets. Meanwhile, Washington should continue funding specialized agencies such as the World Health Organization and the International Atomic Energy Agency, if only to dissuade them from entering the Resolution 2334 swamp.

Last Friday, on the eve of Hanukkah and Christmas,Barack Obama stabbed Israel in the front. The departing president refused to veto United Nations Security CouncilResolution 2334—a measure ostensibly about Israeli settlement policy, but clearly intended to tip the peace process toward the Palestinians. Its adoption wasn’t pretty. But, sadly, it was predictable.

Obama’s Fitting Finish

In the list of low points in U.S. foreign policy, the betrayal of Israel ranks high.

by Bret Stephens December 27, 2016

Barack Obama’s decision to abstain from, and therefore allow, last week’s vote to censure Israel at the U.N. Security Council is a fitting capstone for what’s left of his foreign policy. Strategic half-measures, underhanded tactics and moralizing gestures have been the president’s style from the beginning. Israelis aren’t the only people to feel betrayed by the results.

Iraqis, who were assured of a diplomatic surge to consolidate the gains of the military surge, but who ceased to be of any interest to Mr. Obama the moment U.S. troops were withdrawn, and only concerned him again when ISIS neared the gates of Baghdad.

Ukrainians, who gave up their nuclear weapons in 1994 with formal U.S. assurances that their “existing borders” would be guaranteed, only to see Mr. Obama refuse to supply them with defensive weapons whenVladimir Putininvaded their territory 20 years later.

Pro-American Arab leaders, who expected better than to be given ultimatums from Washington to step down, and who didn’t anticipate the administration’s tilt toward the Muslim Brotherhood as a legitimate political opposition, and toward Tehran as a responsible negotiating partner.

THE WALL STREET JOURNAL

Dangers Rise as America Retreats

Fifteen years after 9/11, the next president will face greater risks and a weaker military to combat them.

By

DICK CHENEYand

LIZ CHENEY

Mr. Cheneywas U.S. vice president from 2001-09. Ms. Cheney is the Republican nominee for Wyoming’s at-large seat in the House.

Sept. 10, 2016

Fifteen years ago this Sunday, nearly 3,000 Americans were killed in the deadliest attack on the U.S. homeland in our history. A decade and a half later, we remain at war with Islamic terrorists. Winning this war will require an effort of greater scale and commitment than anything we have seen since World War II, calling on every element of our national power.

Defeating our enemies has been made significantly more difficult by the policies ofBarack Obama.No American president has done more to weaken the U.S., hobble our defenses or aid our adversaries.

President Obama has been more dedicated to reducing America’s power than to defeating our enemies. He has enhanced the abilities, reach and finances of our adversaries, including the world’s leading state sponsor of terror, at the expense of our allies and our own national security. He has overseen a decline of our own military capabilities as our adversaries’ strength has grown.

Our Air Force today is the oldest and smallest it has ever been. In January 2015, then-Army Chief of Staff Gen.Ray Odiernotestified that the Army was as unready as it had been at any other time in its history. Chief of Naval Operations Adm.Jonathan W. Greenerttestified similarly that, “Navy readiness is at its lowest point in many years.”

Nearly half of the Marine Corps’ non-deployed units—the ones that respond to unforeseen contingencies—are suffering shortfalls,accordingto the commandant of the Corps, Gen.Joseph F. Dunford Jr.For the first time in decades, American supremacy in key areas can no longer be assured.

The president who came into office promising to end wars has made war more likely by diminishing America’s strength and deterrence ability. He doesn’t seem to understand that the credible threat of military force gives substance and meaning to our diplomacy. By reducing the size and strength of our forces, he has ensured that future wars will be longer, and put more American lives at risk.

An Unenviable Job

The next president’s daunting to-do list.

Brian Hook and Neil Bradley

Vol. 21, No. 08

As we approach the third Republican presidential debate, conservatives should consider what they expect the next president to accomplish.

We certainly want the next president to repeal and replace Obamacare, undo the disastrous Iran nuclear agreement, and finally address the problem of illegal immigration. But after eight years of a president who promised to “transform” America, the “to-do” list is actually much larger.

The domestic and national security challenges that await the next president will require a candidate who can set to work the day after the election to assemble a talented team, establish clear priorities, and prepare a comprehensive plan of action.

Here are just a few of the issues that will need to be part of such a plan:

Since Obama took office, over three dozen agencies have issued over 2,500 regulations that impose excessive costs on families and businesses. Over the next 15 months, Obama’s bureaucrats will hurriedly push a flurry of additional regulations out the door.

The administration has notoriously turned to the “pen and phone” strategy. Federal agencies have issued countless directives and guidance memos, and have entered into legal consent decrees that have the effect of substantially altering federal policy. This imperial administration has even gone so far as to change policy, such as delaying parts of Obamacare, through blog posts and press releases. How many of these types of policy changes have been issued is unknowable, because there is no central database for nonregulatory actions. The next administration will need to review these regulations and policy documents and decide whether to rescind, modify, or replace them. This will require committed, competent executives and managers in every agency.

In addition to staffing the White House, the next president will need to fill about 3,000 policy-related positions (not counting ambassadors, U.S. attorneys, and marshals) across the vast federal government. Of these, about 800 will require Senate confirmation. The longer it takes to fill these positions, the longer the new administration will be delayed in reversing Obama’s policies.